IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/rej/journl/v10y2007i25bisp269-294.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Competitiveness Evaluation of Slovenian Economy

Author

Listed:
  • Art Kovacic

    (Institute for Economic Research, Ljubljana, Slovenia)

Abstract

Evaluation of competitiveness became an important instrument for balancing the development process of the economy. For Slovenia it is important tool for policy creation. Benchmarking with more developed countries shows us the right directions of development process. Competitiveness can be analysed from different sides. Existed studies have focused on several different analytical levels: product, firm, industry cluster, region and nation. The most successful economies are raising the skill content of their labour force. By reducing transportation and communication costs, it links economies and societies into closer, tighter webs. It facilitates the integration of production under common ownership (transnational companies), allowing access to capital flows, world markets, skills, and technology. Competitiveness evaluation of Slovenian economy shows us that the problems remain the same during the enlargement process of the European Union. Competitiveness is defined as the quality of the economic and institutional environment for the sustainable development of private productive activities and the increise in productivity. Today we focuse more on policies and strategies on institutional and also on business level that mainatain the long-term competitiveness. Competitiveness can be seen as the collection of factors, policies and institutions which determine the level of productivity of a country and that, therefore, determine the level of prosperity that can be attained by an economy. In the paper I will evaluate the Slovenian competitiveness by SWOT analysis. After European enlargement we can see that some CEE countries have benefited more than other countries. Slovenia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Slovakia have increased the locational attractiveness for business sector and also improved the institutional competitiveness. Harmonization with EU legislation and adoption of “Acquis Communautaire” have improved the institutions and the legal system. On the other side, Croatia, Romania and Bulgaria have problems connected with the enlargement process. Because these latter countries stayed outside the first enlargement process, they have, in addition to their originally less competitive, position lower competitiveness possibilities. The integration process increased the possibilities for benchmarking. Today is more common to benchmark different countries and compare the main determinants of competitiveness. Evaluation of competitiveness is an important tool for economic policy. Slovenia as a small country can be analysed from the view of regional competitiveness. Improving competitiveness is not about driving down living standards. It is about creating a high skills, high productivity and therefore high wage economy where enterprise can flourish and where we can find opportunities rather than threats in changes we cannot avoid. Many governments seriously peruse national competitiveness rankings produced by WEF or IMD. The study of competitiveness strategy is now a very important obligation of government. All new member countries have high-level official committees to deal with competitiveness, reaching across ministerial divisions to devise international, national or regional policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Art Kovacic, 2007. "Competitiveness Evaluation of Slovenian Economy," Romanian Economic Journal, Department of International Business and Economics from the Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest, vol. 10(25bis), pages 269-294, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:rej:journl:v:10:y:2007:i:25bis:p:269-294
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rejournal.eu/Portals/0/Arhiva/JE%2025%20bis/JE%2025%20-%20Kovacic.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert M. Solow, 1956. "A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 70(1), pages 65-94.
    2. Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson & James A. Robinson, 2001. "The Colonial Origins of Comparative Development: An Empirical Investigation," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(5), pages 1369-1401, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Kutuk, Yasin, 2022. "Inequality convergence: A world-systems theory approach," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 150-165.
    2. Kieran McQuinn & Karl Whelan, 2007. "Solow ( 1956 ) as a model of cross-country growth dynamics," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 23(1), pages 45-62, Spring.
    3. Lederman, Daniel & Saenz, Laura, 2005. "Innovation and development around the world, 1960-2000," Policy Research Working Paper Series 3774, The World Bank.
    4. Fofack, Hippolyte, 2008. "Technology trap and poverty trap in Sub-Saharan Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 4582, The World Bank.
    5. Chen, Xi & Funke, Michael, 2013. "The dynamics of catch-up and skill and technology upgrading in China," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 38(PB), pages 465-480.
    6. Andrea Asoni, 2008. "Protection Of Property Rights And Growth As Political Equilibria," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 22(5), pages 953-987, December.
    7. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Roberto Ganau, 2022. "Institutions and the productivity challenge for European regions," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 22(1), pages 1-25.
    8. Åsa Johansson, 2016. "Public Finance, Economic Growth and Inequality: A Survey of the Evidence," OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1346, OECD Publishing.
    9. Amit Nandan & Hrushikesh Mallick, 2022. "Do growth-promoting factors induce income inequality in a transitioning large developing economy? An empirical evidence from Indian states," Economic Change and Restructuring, Springer, vol. 55(2), pages 1109-1139, May.
    10. Elvis Dze Achuo & Tii N. Nchofoung & Simplice A. Asongu & Gildas Dohba Dinga, 2021. "Unravelling the Mysteries of Underdevelopment in Africa," Research Africa Network Working Papers 21/073, Research Africa Network (RAN).
    11. Alfredo Monte & Sara Moccia & Luca Pennacchio, 2022. "Regional entrepreneurship and innovation: historical roots and the impact on the growth of regions," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 58(1), pages 451-473, January.
    12. Enea Baselgia & Reto Foellmi, 2022. "Inequality and growth: a review on a great open debate in economics," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2022-5, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    13. G. Jones & T. Kane, 2012. "U.S. Troops and Foreign Economic Growth," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(3), pages 225-249, June.
    14. Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés & Ketterer, Tobias, 2016. "Institutions vs. ‘First-Nature’ Geography – What Drives Economic Growth in Europe’s Regions?," CEPR Discussion Papers 11322, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Chen, Binkai & Lin, Justin Yifu, 2021. "Development strategy, resource misallocation and economic performance," Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 612-634.
    16. Neven Vidakovic & Iva Mesi?, 2011. "Radna snaga i perspektive ekonomskoga oporavka u Republici Hrvatskoj," Ekonomija Economics, Rifin d.o.o., vol. 18(2), pages 279-312.
    17. Fernanda Llussa, 2007. "Geography matters more: geographical and institutional determinants of income in Brazilian states," Nova SBE Working Paper Series wp517, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Nova School of Business and Economics.
    18. Sulekha Hembram & Sushil Kr. Haldar, 2021. "Revisiting global income convergence: 1990-2018 A disaggregated analysis," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 952-974.
    19. William Hauk & Romain Wacziarg, 2009. "A Monte Carlo study of growth regressions," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 14(2), pages 103-147, June.
    20. Dalgaard, Carl-Johan & Strulik, Holger, 2013. "The history augmented Solow model," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 63(C), pages 134-149.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rej:journl:v:10:y:2007:i:25bis:p:269-294. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Radu Lupu (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frasero.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.